Traditional Catholics - Do They Understand the Context of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter trickster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christine85 said:
I have to get this off my chest- my experience with Traditionalists is that they lack joy and are not very friendly and are very uptight and don’t like change - just my observations
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Sorry, I had to laugh. That was the best derail I’ve seen in a while.

If you’re ever in DC come to St. Mary’s after Mass donut hour, you’ll feel differently.
 
Christine85 said:
Isn’t it the Church teaching that the partner is not to feel cohersed.
Surely if a husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn’t it’s not a MORTAL SIN!!!
Click to expand...
To refuse marital relations with your spouse without just cause is grave matter.
This is Catholic doctrine on marriage.

When you give yourself in marriage, you really give yourself in marriage.

Both spouses should however also be cautioned in marriage prep that insisting upon the fulfillment of this obligation when the other refuses is not a good way to have a happy marriage.

Reluctant persons need to understand that their spouse has rights in marriage that they should respect. Demanding persons need to understand that their spouse has feelings that they should respect.

In particular, men have to learn to not treat their wives as sex objects. This can be very difficult for men to learn and understand in today’s society.
 
Christine85 said:
There’s no point in me continuing to vent my disappointment, best thing I can do is not go back
Click to expand...
But don’t feel bad for it! The Latin Mass here (Una Voce) are happy and humourous…whereas there’s this one group WITHIN the Una Voce who would probably bark at a dog, they’re quite negative…but I’m not to judge, that’s just how they seem to me.

I’m talking of small t traditionalists.
 
I’m left wondering if the folks who put together Vat 2 are seriously disappointed.

They seemed to expect so much of the laity! The laity was to evangelize the world!

And what’s the laity really done? Oh, there are outstanding specimens or examples about, but a larger number just left the church.

So I’m banging on the laity. Schluffs. But of course, they’ve got their work to do, families to raise, communities to manage, etc. Conquering the world for Christ is a tall order, and some thought and organization might make sense in doing this kind of effort!
 
Captain_America said:
I’m left wondering if the folks who put together Vat 2 are seriously disappointed.

They seemed to expect so much of the laity! The laity was to evangelize the world!

And what’s the laity really done? Oh, there are outstanding specimens or examples about, but a larger number just left the church.

So I’m banging on the laity. Schluffs. But of course, they’ve got their work to do, families to raise, communities to manage, etc. Conquering the world for Christ is a tall order, and some thought and organization might make sense in doing this kind of effort!
Click to expand...
Paul VI had expressed his disappoinment on several occasions. But I think you are right - Priests and Bishops with several post-graduate Theology degrees, inside the Vatican for many years, tend to forget that the average layperson doesn’t think like a Priest or Bishop inside the Vatican. People tend to take the path of least resistance, so, if something is made optional, it’s not going to be done by the vast majority of people. The participants in Vatican II seemed to be ignorant of this aspect of human nature. So, “you can use the vernacular in Mass, but we’d like it if you’d keep using some Latin” became “Mass in the vernacular!” Being able to eat meat on Friday if we substituted another act of penance instead became “we can eat meat on Friday!” and so on…

In other words, the laity saw what the mainline Protestants were doing, saw Vatican II create more options, change the Mass around, relax certain requirements, and thought “cool, we’re doing the same thing! Let’s loosen up!”, i.e., the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Then came Humane Vitae - “whoops! Doesn’t look like the Pope wants to do that after all… Oh well, we’ve already started, let him try and stop us!”
 
Christine85 said:
I suppose I just want to share how I felt attending the Latin Church over Easter. Looking back it took away my liveliness and peace being around some of those people. Also the woman who took me there told me one of the Priests there said she’s committing a mortal sin if she doesn’t sleep with her husband. - isn’t that a bit old fashioned.
And that her leaving her bag in the Church and it getting stolen was required to be confessed because she was providing an occasion of sin for the thief.
That’s simply ridiculous … Talk about encouraging scruples
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians: 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

Yes, it is old fashioned but God doesn’t change because times change. His ways are old-fashioned. His ways and His words are still true. A husband and a wife have a responsibility to give themselves to each other, to not without just cause is a mortal sin. As the apostle Paul says prayer is one reason, others reasons might be danger to each other or to an unborn baby, drunkenness, sickness or mental illness but, yeah, if you’re married you need to be together intimately. That applies to all Catholics, not just traditionalists but then all of truths of the Catholic church apply to all Catholics not just traditional Catholics.

Not knowing the whole situation with the bag I can’t comment.
 
Christine85 said:
I have to get this off my chest- my experience with Traditionalists is that they lack joy and are not very friendly and are very uptight and don’t like change - just my observations
Click to expand...
Be careful that you dont cast stones. You are painting with a broad brush an entire group of people. It is odd that you would say a people that appears somber to you lack joy when your signature includes a picture with 4 tears. I don’t assume that mean you lack joy. perhaps it want your cup o tea but that has nothing to do with the thread or it’s point, it is just a shot at a group of people you dont agree with which is exactly what you don’t like about them when they do it to you.
 
Christine85 said:
And that her leaving her bag in the Church and it getting stolen was required to be confessed because she was providing an occasion of sin for the thief.
Click to expand...
Tha’ts crazy talk.
Also the woman who took me there told me one of the Priests there said she’s committing a mortal sin if she doesn’t sleep with her husband. - isn’t that a bit old fashioned.
Click to expand...
If you consistently reject your husband because you are not in the mood, then yes, it is grave sin. Same goes for the husband rejecting the wife.

If one night you are really tired, then of course that’s not sinning.
 
Seamus_L said:
Some days I almost get the impression that this particular forum exists so that people can have a place to take shots at the Latin Mass and those who attend it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

This OP consistently creates threads in the Trad forum that he knows will rile trads.
 
JaMc said:
Paul VI had expressed his disappoinment on several occasions. But I think you are right - Priests and Bishops with several post-graduate Theology degrees, inside the Vatican for many years, tend to forget that the average layperson doesn’t think like a Priest or Bishop inside the Vatican. People tend to take the path of least resistance, so, if something is made optional, it’s not going to be done by the vast majority of people. The participants in Vatican II seemed to be ignorant of this aspect of human nature. So, “you can use the vernacular in Mass, but we’d like it if you’d keep using some Latin” became “Mass in the vernacular!” Being able to eat meat on Friday if we substituted another act of penance instead became “we can eat meat on Friday!” and so on…

In other words, the laity saw what the mainline Protestants were doing, saw Vatican II create more options, change the Mass around, relax certain requirements, and thought “cool, we’re doing the same thing! Let’s loosen up!”, i.e., the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Then came Humane Vitae - “whoops! Doesn’t look like the Pope wants to do that after all… Oh well, we’ve already started, let him try and stop us!”
Click to expand...
It is difficult to see where V2 “relaxed” the requirements or gave Catholics a path of lesser resistance. On the contrary, a disciplined reading of V2 unveils some serious challenges to the heart and will, and a call to growth and action that many are unwilling to read, hear, and embrace. The comfortable and hazy past becomes the path of lesser resistance.
 
clem456 said:
It is difficult to see where V2 “relaxed” the requirements or gave Catholics a path of lesser resistance. On the contrary, a disciplined reading of V2 unveils some serious challenges to the heart and will, and a call to growth and action that many are unwilling to read, hear, and embrace.
Click to expand...
One simply has to compare the required disciplines of the past to the required disciplines of the present to see how things have been relaxed.

As an example, we went from 50 plus days of fasting (Lent + Ember Days + Rogation Days + etc) each year to… drum roll… 2!

Now, I agree with you that such changes were not stipulated in the VII documents, but it was in the name of VII that they were implemented and in it is disingenuous to say that VII, as perceived by the church, had nothing to do with such changes.
The comfortable and hazy past becomes the path of lesser resistance.
Click to expand...
If you mean habits are the path of lesser resistance, then I agree. Of course, if we have cultivated holy habits, then this is a VERY good thing.

If you mean that change is difficult, then I also agree. HOWEVER, just because change is generally difficult for people doesn’t mean that all change is good. Difficult does not always equal good, though the good and holy path is often difficult. The logic flows one way, not the other. Let us not forget what Christ said: His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

And finally, if you are taking a pot-shot at traditional Catholicism, I suggest you rethink your strategy.
  • PAX
 
Seamus_L said:
Some days I almost get the impression that this particular forum exists so that people can have a place to take shots at the Latin Mass and those who attend it.
Click to expand...
This seems to be true. It sometimes amazes me the number of active posters in this forum who do not attend the EF (and some have even said they would not even if given the chance),

I’m not saying that such people shouldn’t post in this forum; I just wonder why they do (perhaps I’ll start a separate thread on this).
  • PAX
ETA: On second thought, such a thread might not be all that helpful. I’ll let someone else start it 😃
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
This seems to be true. It sometimes amazes me the number of active posters in this forum who do not attend the EF (and some have even said they would not even if given the chance),

I’m not saying that such people shouldn’t post in this forum; I just wonder why they do (perhaps I’ll start a separate thread on this).
  • PAX
ETA: On second thought, such a thread might not be all that helpful. I’ll let someone else start it 😃
Click to expand...
There is more to being traditional than what form of the Mass you attend. 😉
 
Mrs_Sally said:
There is more to being traditional than what form of the Mass you attend. 😉
Click to expand...
You are exactly right, which is why a traditional parish is the ideal, with all of the wonderful traditions, devotions, and orthodox teachings that go along with it, instead of just having the EF on Wednesday night at the local seminary.
  • PAX
 
OK the overwhelming respondents think that traditional catholics are more aware of the context and forces (i.e. a 60’s de-colonizing world for starters) that energized the church through the Vatican II council. There was a debate about the old fashion or new fashion “legalistic” interpretations of church teaching in the form of discussion around a woman who did not want to sleep with her husband and that all traditional catholics are sad…

So let me “amuse” my critics a bit more. I am - as many know - an Aboriginal Canadian - Native American person. I am a post-modern theological student because I believe in the message adn work of Jesus and I also believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church as they exist today and as they have been clarified and evolved (in terms of clarity for the last 2000 years. I am a fan of the Extra ordinary (Latin) Mass as a range of options available to Catholics as the traditional mass is a beautiful form of worship, of intensity with respect to the all mighty nature of God and the nature of the sacifice bloodlessly re-enacted in our masses.

I also live in an aboriginal community and many aboriginal people are between traditional religions and a desire to reconcile their (our) Catholicism to our culture and spirituality as native people. The diversity, flexibility, common sense love that Jesus showed of the Post-vatican II church makes me feel welome to ur communion…and I believe we have much more work toinclude all of the world’s people in the basic message of sharing Jesus’ message to the whole world.

Is traditional catholicism open to aboiginal forms of a mass? That is where I am leading to with respect to a new openess (albeit with mistakes) envisioned by Vatican II…by the way, I am old enough to remember the traditional mass when it was the “mass of the day”…and I am truly a Vatican II kind of baby-boomer 🙂

Bruce
 
The problem with communications is that humans are so bad at it! 😃

We tend to use vague terms, make sweeping generalizations and then are surprised when people are hurt or get angry defensive. No wonder we keep killing each other…

Take the poor Aussie bride example that derailed things for a bit. It is possible that the priest interpreted her as saying that while she was about to get married, she had no interest in sexual relations with her soon to be husband? That’s how I read it. And I’d be alarmed too (especially if I were said fiance and had no idea of the rude shock approaching for me!). Sexual intimacy isn’t just nice, it’s an integral piece of marriage. So much so that the union isn’t permanent until it has been consumated.

In large part, this is more relevant to Vatican II than one might at first suspect. My suspicion is that catholic culture had become too entrenched and tribalized into a system where the laity tended to receive the message that the faith was a system of rules to obey in which you received a reward if you completed certain minimum requirements. Real faith and heroic virtue became something clergy and religious did, not the average guy. I think Vatican II was called to challenge that culture and call the laity AND religious to know God in a personal way both as individuals and together as a church. Ironically, IMO some of Vatican II’s greatest successes are within the traditional catholic movement where people have recognized the spiritual treasure that exists in the millenia of devotions, liturgies and pious practices that have lead countless saints to know God and fall ever more deeply in love with him.

Traditional catholics do not necessarily oppose cultural adaptation of liturgy and practices to the cultures that are receiving them. What we DO object to is being told that our OWN heritage is worthless, archaic and should be tossed in the scrap heap of theological history. Other cultures accepting Christ can and will bring their own adaptations to the externals of church life. The trick (no pun intended) is to discern the essentials from the peripherals. Diversity in the latter, uniformity in the former.

Vatican II did not call for everybody to invent their own catholicism. How it came to popularly stand for that is arguable, but IMO has a lot to do with personal agendas of clergy in place after the council. But what those old guys tried to do with Vatican II is less important than what the Council ACTUALLY says. We finally are arriving at the point where the agitators are retiring and the next generation is reading the council documents themselves, not manifestos of the innovators who claimed to speak in its name, but didn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top